# Dhananjai Singh v. Mukhya Surakash Ayukt, R.P.F. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 481
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-05-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 4477 of 2005
- **Bench:** Umeshwar Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dhananjai-singh-v-mukhya-surakash-ayukt-r-p-f-and-others-40478
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 39,
readwith
section
176
of
I.P.C.-
Application u/s 156 (3) rejected on the
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
ground without having any locus standi
under
specific
statutory
mandateinformation given to magistrate-seeking
direction
of
investigation-cannot
be
rejected-if the applicant abstains from
giving
such
information
virtually
commits the offence under section 176
IPC-
held
rejection
of
application
amounts great illegality. Rejection Order
quashed.

Held: Para 7

Whether or not the petitioner was
related to the deceased Girdhar or he
has one or the other connection with
him, if an information of commission of
murder of Girdhar has been given by the
petitioner to the court, the required
directions under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
for investigation of the case should in all
reasonableness had to be given by the
court. The revisional court by rejecting
the revision of the petitioner on the
aforesaid ground of locus being not
available to him for moving the court
with a prayer under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C., appears to be grossly erroneous.

## Text

2 All] Dhananjai Singh V. Mukhya Surakash Ayukt, R.P.F. and others

 481
and antecedents of the respondent to
continue in service or not. The High
Court, in our view, has failed to see this
aspect of the matter. It went wrong in
saying that the criminal case had been
subsequently withdrawn and that the
offences, in which the respondent was
alleged to have been involved, were also
not of serious nature. In the present case
the respondent was to serve as a Physical
Education teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya.
The character, conduct and antecedent of
a teacher will have some impact on the
minds of the students of impressionable
age. The appellants having considered
all the aspects passed the order of
dismissal of the respondent from service.
The Tribunal after due consideration
rightly recorded a finding of fact in
upholding the order of dismissal passed
by the appellants. The High Court was
clearly in error in upsetting the order of
the Tribunal. The High Court was again
not right in taking note of the withdrawal
of the case by the State Government and
that the case was not of a serious nature
to set aside the order of the Tribunal on
that ground as well. The respondent
accepted the offer of appointment subject
to the terms and conditions mentioned
therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of
the said memorandum extracted above in
clear terms kept the respondent informed
that the suppression of any information
may lead to dismissal from service. In the
attestation form, the respondent has
certified that the information given by him
is correct and complete to the best of his
knowledge and belief, if he could not
understand the contents of column nos. 12
and 13, he could not certify so. Having
certified that the information given by him
is correct and complete his version cannot
be accepted. The order of termination of
services clearly shows that there has been
due consideration of various aspects."

12. After hearing counsel for the
parties and after perusal of the record and
after consideration of various judgments
of the Apex Court as well as this Court, it
is clear that the petitioner has concealed
the facts regarding the criminal case,
which were pending against the petitioner
and has not given the correct information
in the declaration form, though there was
a specific column regarding pendency of
any criminal case whether it is pending or
whether it was pending and whether the
petitioner has been acquitted or not. The
petitioner has clearly concealed this fact,
as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

The writ petition is devoid of merits
and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.5.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 4477 of 2005

Badan Singh

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite party

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashutosh Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 39,
readwith
section
176
of
I.P.C.-
Application u/s 156 (3) rejected on the
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
ground without having any locus standi
under
specific
statutory
mandateinformation given to magistrate-seeking
direction
of
investigation-cannot
be
rejected-if the applicant abstains from
giving
such
information
virtually
commits the offence under section 176
IPC-
held
rejection
of
application
amounts great illegality. Rejection Order
quashed.

Held: Para 7

Whether or not the petitioner was
related to the deceased Girdhar or he
has one or the other connection with
him, if an information of commission of
murder of Girdhar has been given by the
petitioner to the court, the required
directions under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
for investigation of the case should in all
reasonableness had to be given by the
court. The revisional court by rejecting
the revision of the petitioner on the
aforesaid ground of locus being not
available to him for moving the court
with a prayer under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C., appears to be grossly erroneous.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A.

2. In this petition the order dated
15.4.2005 of the learned Sessions Judge,
Mathura is under challenge.

3. The learned counsel contends that
the petition under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
was given by the petitioner before the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
concerned
disclosing certain facts, which prima facie
projects a story of commission of
cognizable offence of murder. The Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
concerned
after
hearing the petitioner, did not find force
with the prayer made for the direction of
investigation in the matter and as such he
dismissed the petition. Against that order,
it is contended that the petitioner went in
revision
before
the
Sessions
Judge
concerned, who on the same ground has
rejected the revision stating that the
petitioner did not have any locus for
putting in his prayer under Section 156
(3) before the Magistrate. It is submitted
by the learned counsel that such a
reasoning, as given by the courts below,
appears to be ridiculous in the light of the
provisions
of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure. He has referred to the
provisions of Section 39 Cr.P.C. and has
also drawn the attention of the court to the
provisions of 176 of I.P.C.

4. A perusal of the impugned order
passed by the revisional court as well as
the order passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, shows that both the courts
have concurrently held that the petitioner
did not have any locus for moving the
court of Magistrate under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. and as such, the petitioner's
prayer before both the courts below has
been dismissed. In fact, the story as
disclosed in the petition and given before
the Magistrate under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. states that one Girdhar was
murdered by his son and other family
members, the knowledge of which was
had by the petitioner after some time. This
offence being a serious offence of
cognizable nature, if has come to the
notice of the petitioner, he is definitely
bound under Section 39 Cr.P.C. to give
the information of the same to the
competent Magistrate or the Police
officer. The extract of the aforesaid
Section 39 (1) Cr.P.C. is as below:-

5. Public to give information of
certain offences - (1) Every person,
aware of the Commission of, or of the
2 All] Badan Singh V. State of U.P.

 483
intention of any other person to commit,
any offence punishable under any of the
following sections of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860), namely:........

(v) section 302, 303 and 304 (that is to
say, offences affecting life) ..........
Shall, in the absence of any reasonable
excuse, the burden of proving which
excuse shall lie upon the person so aware,
forthwith give information to the nearest
Magistrate or police officer of such
Commission or intention;

6. In view of the aforesaid specific
statutory mandate if the petitioner has
come
to
know
of
commission
of
cognizable offence he was bound to give
information of the same and thus to make
prayer before the competent Magistrate
for a direction of investigation under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. In case, the
petitioner deliberately or without any
excuse
abstains
from
giving
such
information, as stipulated aforesaid under
Section 39 (1) Cr.P.C., he virtually
commits the offence punishable under
Section 176 I.P.C. With this legal position
at hand, the petitioner was actually duty
bound
under
the
statute
to
give
information to the Magistrate. Such
Magistrate, however, is not supposed to
reject that information simply on the
ground that the petitioner did not have
any locus in the matter. In this context,
the case law of Raja Ram Vs. State of
U.P. & others, 2004 (49) A.C.C. 847, is
quite relevant.

7. Whether or not the petitioner was
related to the deceased Girdhar or he has
one or the other connection with him, if
an information of commission of murder
of Girdhar has been given by the
petitioner to the court, the required
directions under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
for investigation of the case should in all
reasonableness had to be given by the
court. The revisional court by rejecting
the revision of the petitioner on the
aforesaid ground of locus being not
available to him for moving the court with
a prayer under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.,
appears to be grossly erroneous. The
entire relevant legal framework in this
context should have been taken into
account by the courts below and they
should not have passed the orders so
cursorily in such a serious matter.

8. In result, the petition is allowed
and the impugned order dated 15.4.2005
passed by the Sessions Judge, Mathura, is
hereby set aside. It is however, directed
that the Sessions Judge concerned shall
take up the matter and reconsider it in the
light of the aforesaid observations within
ten days from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order and pass
suitable orders in accordance with law.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.06.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 312 of 2003

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing
Division), New Delhi and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),
Kanpur and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Prakash Padia
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh, S.C.